Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.47 seconds)The Handicrafts & Handloom Export ... vs The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. on 6 May, 2015
'...It is correct that there were dispute the HHEC and Defendant
no.2. It is correct that the dispute raised with Defendant no.2 was
after 25.04.2005 about this transaction. I have mentioned the
dispute with defendant no.2 but not placed any documents on
record. It is correct to suggest that the dispute raised with
Defendant no.2 includes the current transaction in question as well.
I do not recall whether the dispute raised with Defendant no.2 was
prior or after filing of the complaint with the Hon'ble NCDRC
CS no. 57296/16
The Handicrafts & Handloom Corporation of India Ltd.
vs. The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Page no. 13 of 24
against the Defendant no.1.'
......
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 24A in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Purni Devi And Another vs Babu Ram And Others on 9 April, 2018
13.10 In Purni Devi & Anr. vs. Babu Ram & Anr. 2 It has been held as
under:
Ahalavath Orgnics Ltd vs State Bank Of Mysore on 25 May, 2012
It is relevant to refer to Ahlavath Orgnics
Limited vs. State Bank of Mysore3 where it has been held as under:
Consolidated Engg.Enterprises vs Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. & Ors on 3 April, 2008
18. It would be useful to reproduce the guidelines laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs.
Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and Ors. (2008) 7 SCC
169, which read as under:
M.P. Steel Corporation vs Commnr. Of Central Excise on 23 April, 2015
20. In the present matter, by issuing a notice to the bank and
thereafter pursuing the matter before the Reserve Bank of India by
no stretch of imagination can be said that the plaintiff was pursuing
his relief against any court as neither the defendant nor Reserve
Bank of India would fall in the definition of a court. Thus, Section
14 of the Limitation Act cannot be attracted to the facts of the
present case.'
13.12 As regards, availing remedy before the NDCRC, it is not in
dispute that (a) both proceedings were civil in nature (b) CC o.130 of
2007 failed due to defect of jurisdiction (c) both proceedings emanate
out of alleged deficiency of service and (d) both proceedings are in
Court4. It has not been proved that the proceedings before the
consumer forum was without 'due diligence' and 'good faith'5
13.13 Therefore, there is no reason to deny the benefit of Section 14
of Limitation Act to HHEC for time spent in litigation before the
4Para 43 of M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commnr. Of Central Excise decided by Surpreme Court of
India on 23.04.2015 where it has been held relying upon P. Sarathy v. State Bank of India,
(2000) 5 SCC 355 that court referred to in Section 14 would include quasi judicial tribunal
5Para 34 of MP Steel (Supra)
CS no. 57296/16
The Handicrafts & Handloom Corporation of India Ltd.
vs. The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Page no. 19 of 24
NCDRC.
P. Sarathy vs State Bank Of India on 12 May, 2000
20. In the present matter, by issuing a notice to the bank and
thereafter pursuing the matter before the Reserve Bank of India by
no stretch of imagination can be said that the plaintiff was pursuing
his relief against any court as neither the defendant nor Reserve
Bank of India would fall in the definition of a court. Thus, Section
14 of the Limitation Act cannot be attracted to the facts of the
present case.'
13.12 As regards, availing remedy before the NDCRC, it is not in
dispute that (a) both proceedings were civil in nature (b) CC o.130 of
2007 failed due to defect of jurisdiction (c) both proceedings emanate
out of alleged deficiency of service and (d) both proceedings are in
Court4. It has not been proved that the proceedings before the
consumer forum was without 'due diligence' and 'good faith'5
13.13 Therefore, there is no reason to deny the benefit of Section 14
of Limitation Act to HHEC for time spent in litigation before the
4Para 43 of M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commnr. Of Central Excise decided by Surpreme Court of
India on 23.04.2015 where it has been held relying upon P. Sarathy v. State Bank of India,
(2000) 5 SCC 355 that court referred to in Section 14 would include quasi judicial tribunal
5Para 34 of MP Steel (Supra)
CS no. 57296/16
The Handicrafts & Handloom Corporation of India Ltd.
vs. The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Page no. 19 of 24
NCDRC.
1